Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 14:01:06 +0100 From: phk@freebsd.org To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys _mutex.h Message-ID: <25125.1041598866@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 03 Jan 2003 23:38:29 %2B1100." <20030103230420.W3339-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20030103230420.W3339-100000@gamplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: >On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 phk@freebsd.org wrote: > >> In message <20030103212617.K2888-100000@gamplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: >> >On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> MFC: Conditionalize 16 bytes of struct mutex on MUTEX_PROFILING >> > >> >Please back this out. It is contentious even in -current. Even its >> >misleading comment hasn't been fixed. >> >> I'll await re@'s decision. It is necessary to prevent -current and >> 5.0-RELENG machines from running out of kmem_map space and as I >> read John, that takes precedence. > >Really? It should make more than a few percent difference. The problem is that UFS2 dinodes are 128 bytes larger than UFS1 dinodes, in order to compensate for this, I moved the FFS inodes to use the UMA allocator so that 144 bytes is allocated as 144 bytes and not as 256 bytes as malloc(9) did it. Save 16 bytes per mutex actually puts on on a safer side than with UFS1+malloc(9). Finally being more firm about desiredvnodes should put a solid lid on the issue. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?25125.1041598866>